OBAMA'S GAMBIT IN KENYA

During a speech made in Kenya, Barack Obama referred to himself as "the first sitting American President to come from Kenya." This has reignited social media into a storm of controversy about Obama's actual place of birth. The whole thing is ridiculous because the question has been settled: Obama was born in Hawaii.

But why would Obama say something like this if it were not true? There are some very clever political reasons why Obama would like to renew the controversy. Let's examine some of them.

To do so, it would be best to examine an often overlooked aspect of the controversy. When Obama graduated from Harvard, he planned to write a book. The book itself was never written, but Obama employed a publicist that also worked for other prominent people, like Tip O'Neill, who at the time was Speaker of the House. A pamphlet containing bio sketches of each of her clients was printed and distributed in 1991. Obama's entry noted that he was born in Kenya. It was believed that the pretense of being Kenyan born would make Obama's book more attractive to potential publishers.

Snopes Link

Obama had to know what his publisher wrote on his behalf. It's hard to imagine a publicist for an young, ambitious and driven Harvard Law grad being able to write a single word about her client without his full knowledge and consent. The pamphlet remained uncorrected and in circulation for 17 years. It was only corrected in early 2008, when it resurfaced as so many things do, in the heat of the Democrat Party's campaign nomination process. But by then, people in the Clinton Campaign had already latched onto the Kenyan birth conspiracy.

Politically, claiming Obama was actually Kenyan born and not eligible to become President due to vague and arcane rules existing at the time of his birth about the duration of residency, particularly for his father, seemed petty, even racially motivated. Obama claimed to be born in Hawaii and there seemed to be a preponderance of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction. Enough at least, to marginalize those still questioning his eligibility to become President.

While the controversy settled down on the Democrat side of the aisle, it was only getting started on the Republican side. Obama kept just enough of his personal background out of site and the media was sufficiently incurious about his personal background to perpetuate the controversy.
People would ask, "where are his college transcripts?"
"Where is his birth certificate?"
One Kenyan Aunt claimed to have witnessed his birth in Kenya.
The governor of Hawaii had his birth certificate or other related documents in the state archives.

It seemed that the controversy could be ended once and for all if Obama, by this time, President, simply released his birth certificate proving the location of his birth. Politically, it made no sense for Obama to do it. By not releasing them, he could marginalize his opponents by conflating them with conspiracy theorists as people on the fringe of reality. That works to empower a politician.

Eventually, Obama released his birth certificate, but not before tampering with them, which again was politically brilliant. Why? Because it divided the birther conspiracists into those who would accept his birth certificate and those who still believed it was a fraud. This is what leftists do, folks. They are all about psychological operations using information and disinformation.

Obama releases long form birth certificate: CNN

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Obama's birth certificate is a forgery

Perpetuating the birther conspiracy was so politically effective for Obama, it appears as though he might be attempting to get it started again.

Consider this: How damaging would it be to President Trump's credibility if he were to start tweeting endlessly about Obama's statement in Kenya? Trump was one of those obsessed with Obama's proof of citizenship and natural born qualifications. He gave up the ghost on it very reluctantly. If he were to obsess about it again, it would alienate at least some of his supporters, who are currently as loyal as any politician could ever hope for.

So, this podcast is a word of warning to the Commander in Chief, Donald J Trump: Don't fall for Obama's trap. He's attempting to goad you. Taking the bait will not serve America and it will not make us greater or stronger.

TRANSFORMATION: TODAY'S LEFTISTS AND YESTERDAY'S LIBERALS

Back in 2007, when I first got wind of Barack Obama, an exciting newcomer to the national political scene, it was immediately recognizable to me, through his rhetoric, that he was NOT a Liberal in the sense of what that term had come to mean from the FDR era forward. Obama used much of the traditional rhetoric of Liberals, but he also expressed a good deal of leftist rhetoric.

What's the difference?

Liberal rhetoric advocates for a more activist federal government as a COMPLEMENT to certain limitations the private economy (ie., individuals and businesses) has in addressing societal inequities. The role of government for a liberal, is to do what nobody else can to address those problems. Conservatives disagree with this, of course. They place more faith in the free market and insist inequities can be alleviated more efficiently and effectively if government's role was limited to keeping the markets open, free and fair.

Leftists have a compeletely different view from Conservatives and even from Liberals. Leftists see government as a competitor to the private economy, and ultimately having total control over it. For Leftists, government has a mostly hostile and predatory position toward businesses. Unlike Liberals, Leftists use the power and authority of government to compel large, leading corporations as administers of government policy. It would be beneficial at this point to use examples as a way to illustrate the differences between Liberals and Leftists.

President George H. W. Bush signed legislation that required handicapped access to public accommodations. This was a Liberal intervention. Today, handicapped parking, and wheel chair accessible ramps are a ubiquitous feature of American life. The government set up certain standards and guidelines and businesses followed them. It was designed to address an issue of access for a significant number of Americans.

President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare into law. This was a leftist intervention. The guidance in Obamacare was so comprehensive, it thoroughly transformed the health insurance, service and delivery segments of the American economy into tools of government policy. For example, insurance companies had their offerings dictated to them. They were given limitations in terms of administrative costs. Doctors were required to track tens of thousands of additional diagnostic codes, making backoffice administration far more costly. Virtually everything done by insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and the like, had their behavior controlled by law or regulations having the force of law. This is not Liberal. It authoritarian control of an entire industry by government, claiming to be acting in the "public good."

The problem with government involvement, whether it is by Liberals or Leftists is that it politicizes whatever it touches. Decisions are then made, not on the economic efficacy or the medical efficacy in the case of Obamacare, but on the political efficacy. Political clout often will overrule common sense. Pressure group politics can provide outsized influence into the decisionmaking process, causing the misappropriation of resources. This can lead to disastrous outcomes when a particular group's influence is effective in garnering more resources to their issue than would otherwise be warranted.

This occurred even before the adoption of the Affordable Care Act when more research funding was directed at the disease of AIDS than cancer. AIDS affects only a tiny portion of the American population compared to cancer. Yet, activist groups were effective in compelling the Federal government to devote more funding to AIDS. This is what leftism leads to.

So, when America elects a Leftist as President, such as Obama, the federal bureaucracy becomes saturated with civil service appointments allied to a leftist government ethos. This becomes highly problematic. All one needs to do to understand just how problematic it becomes, is to look around the world where Leftists have gained a foothold into the national government. In just about every case, almost without any exceptions, once given power, leftists do not relinquish it. Rather, they become more radicalized, encouraged by their earlier successes in acquiring power. The failure of their policies are of little importance to them. They hold a fanatical devotion to acquiring power and an unshakable belief that a powerful central government is the best way to address societal inequities. Failures are never attributed to the shortcomings of their ideas, but rather to the opposition to those ideas.

The election of Donald Trump as President caused an earthquake across the American political landscape. It cannot be overstated. Trump represented an incredible and disruptive change to the body politic. Simply by being elected, he exposed how insular the Washington establishment had become. This was true for almost all of the political power structure in Washington which is much more than the politicians and their staff in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It also includes the Federal agencies, lobby groups, registered and unregistered agents of foreign governments, and the national media. Nearly all of them were put on notice with Trump's election. Add into this cocktail, the fact that America had just endured 8 years of a Leftist President appointing bureaucrats throughout the federal bureaucracy, and it should become clear why America seems so divided today.

It is a complex issue. The radicals on the Left are making it an incendiary one. While Trump may enjoy devoted supporters across the country in average Americans, where he has between 45%-50% approval, he has no such core of support in Congress reflecting that fact. He is hated, literally, by the entire Democrat Party which is no longer Liberal, but Left, thanks to Obama, nearly all of the news media, and powerful entrenched bureaucrats in the Federal agencies, as well as former agency heads and bureaucrats who are now free to publicly express political leanings we are supposed to believe they never allowed to influence them while they were government employees.

Here is the bottom line, folks. Once Leftists have been able to insinuate themselves into the government, you cannot expect them to honor the traditions we have had in America for more than two centuries. The Left is happy and willing to burn the house down and blame it on their political enemies. Compromise with the Left is impossible because they aren't interested in compromising. They are out to destroy. Yet, this is but one part of the challenge to President Trump. He's got more than the Left to contend with. Even Republicans, who for years, tried to negotiate and compromise with the Left, only to get their heads handed to them, continue to believe the political paradigm hasn't changed. This IS the fundamental transformation of America Barack Hussein Obama spoke about, people. This is it. This is who they are. This is what they're about.

Even if President Trump left office, everything you hear now, would be said about Mike Pence. And even if there was no President Pence and if it were another Republican, say President John Kasich or President Jeff Flake, or even President Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, the very same attacks would be taking place on that Republican. Don't kid yourself. It would only differ by degree. We have ample evidence to prove this point.

Take the example of Bret Kavanaugh. Is there anyone less threatening from all appearances? Anyone who, based on his record, seems more open minded? More family oriented? More civic minded? Yet, even he is castigated and villainized as a threat to freedom. The treatment of Kavanaugh should inform us all of what the Left will do.

We have already seen a Leftist and supporter of Bernie Sanders, another Leftist, attempt mass murder of Republicans. We have seen Leftists harrass Cabinet level officials in their homes and in public accommodations like restaurants. We have seen Leftists deny service to people based on their politics. We have seen leftists riot. We have seen leftists physically assault Trump supporters leaving a rally. But that's not all: We have seen a leftist member of Congress demand the President be overthrown in a military coup. We have seen another leftist member of Congress stir up bitter anger and encourage people to confront and harass anyone in President Trump's administration. We have seen members of Congress accuse President Trump of treason over something he said in a press conference. We have seen supposedly apolitical members of government agencies in the Obama administration declare the President a traitor and call for his impeachment.

I could make this list a lot longer. But the point should not be lost here. Leftists are not Liberals. Liberals never and would never do what these Leftists are doing. They are the ones doing Vladimir Putin's work for him. They are the ones undermining confidence in our government and especially the President and his administration. If anyone is committing sedition or treachery, it is the LEFT!

The sooner Americans wake up to the fact that it is the Left who is poisoning the political dialogue in America, and vigorously and unambiguosly repudiates it, and demands the government be flushed of this kind of subversion, the better off America will be.

https://fundedresearch.cancer.gov/nciportfolio/search/funded;jsessionid=84F8C1410CD3B2037AC131702B7D4E12?action=full&fy=PUB2016&type=site

WHERE WE'VE BEEN, ARE AND GOING

In every election since Barack Obama won the Presidency in 2008, the Democrat Party has lost ground. By 2010, the Democrats lost
a total of 70 seats in the House and Senate, along with control of a majority of state legislative chambers and governorships.
Even at the local level, Democrats saw their hold on elected offices slip to a low not seen in nearly a century.

What was the cause of this? Democrats believed it was personal animus against America's first Halfrican American President. In
other words, racism. But was it? Liberal pundits and politicians pointed to the overwhelmingly white opposition to Obama. But did
that necessarily mean the opposition was based on race? Among blacks, Obama enjoyed almost unanimous support. It stood to reason
that any opposition to Obama would lack much, if any, black support. Rather than Obama's opposition being based in race, it
appeared that his support, at least among blacks was certainly based in it.

The Democrats made an almost unprecedented gross miscalculation assuming opposition to Obama was primarily racial and not policy
driven. Now surely, there were people who opposed Obama's policies purely on racial grounds and there should be no misunderstanding
about that. But the problem came in assuming the vast majority of his opposition was based in anything but policy. After all,
nearly half of all white voters cast their vote for Obama in 2008. The reversal from support to opposition cannot be explained by
racism, but rather by policy. Democrats miscalculated by not understanding this and paid a heavy price in 2010.

The Democrats also made up other excuses for their losses in 2010: gerrymandering and voter turnout. Both had some element of
truth, but were they the primary cause of their losses? Here again, as with the racial excuse, Democrats miscalculated the anger
of the electorate at what they interpreted as a betrayal by Obama and the Democrats in terms of policy versus promises made.

Had the 2010 losses resulted from low turnout in an off-year election, then 2012 should have delivered a different result. But
instead of clawing back any significant portion of their 2010 losses, Democrats won back only a handful of seats. Furthermore, had
the 2010 losses been the result of gerrymandering, it didn't explain why Republicans continued to gain ground in statewide elections
for Senator, governor and other statewide offices.

Democrats continued to make gerrymandering and turnout their arguments heading into the 2014 election and again, lost big. This
time, yielding control of the Senate to the Republicans and even more governorships and state legislative chambers.

Heading into the 2016 election, the true Democrat strategy became clear. They were giving up on white middle class voters
altogether, in favor of the anticipated demographic shift to Latin-American voters. Democrats, who have always favored granting
amnesty to illegal aliens, saw it as a way back to political power, even dominance. They even had a sizable share of Republicans
in the House on their side, who represented commercial interests looking for cheap, unskilled labor.

Democrat policies of government safety nets and dependency programs would be enough to lure the desperately destitute in Latin
America. In fact, 70% of all illegal aliens already in the United States receive some form of government assistance. Hundreds of
cities around the country enacted "sanctuary laws" which limited or even in some cases, forbade cooperation with Federal immigration
authorities, even if they were seeking out violent criminal suspects or drug gang members. Again, the Democrats appeared to be
miscalculating, but it appeared very little could be done about it because the election of Hillary Clinton seemed inevitable.

At this point, it would be useful to stop and remind everyone that the issue of immigration has always inflamed passions in the American
people. And it is no different today. The passion today, however, is not directed at the illegal immigrants themselves. Most are decent,
religious, industrious and hard working family people. Rather, the passion and even anger is being directed at the politicians who are
clearly intent upon placing the interests of those illegally in the country on a par with American citizens and sometimes, even ahead of
the interest on American citizens. It appeared to a great many Americans in 2016 and even more today, in 2018, that the Democrats in Congress
and even some Republicans want to nullify the political voice of American citizens when it comes to the issue of immigration, by granting
amnesty, citizenship and voting rights to people who have illegally entered the United States.

This was the predicate for the candidacy of Donald Trump. Make no mistake about it. Donald Trump knew tens of millions of Americans were
feeling ignored by their elected leadership in Washington. The issue is so much more serious than the entrenched power structure inside the
Washington Beltway could even fathom. The American economy had been in a slow growth slog since the end of the 2008 recession. Millions of
unskilled and less educated people remained unemployed, while millions of high skilled, high wage jobs could not be filled. A policy granting
amnesty to millions of unskilled people, would only encourage more to come, creating a wider gap in the skills of the unemployed versus the
skills needed to fill well paying jobs open and available.

If America elected Hillary Clinton, it was heading in that direction on the immigration issue. The wrong direction. Almost miraculously,
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton and immediately went to work on the immigration issue.

The United States is more than $20 Trillion in debt and so far under President Trump, that situation is not improving. Bringing more illegal
aliens into the US, would only make the problem worse. President Trump is attempting to stop the flow by adopting a policy of strict
enforcement that looks to discourage people from illegally entering the US or overstaying visas. He has also proposed other measures, which
look like common sense to most people, but to Democrats who have lost their grip on power, sound more like existential threats to their
party. Ending Chain Migration, Merit Based immigration, A well policied and maintained border wall with Mexico, are all considered threats to
Democrat desires to ascend back into power.

It is in this vein, that Democrats and their allies in the media have amped up the rhetoric against this President. But the rhetoric against
Trump and the Republicans didn't need any amping up. The inflammatory rhetoric has already led to the attempted assassination of more than
a dozen Republicans and their staff in a shooting that nearly killed House Majority Whip, Steve Scalise. Now, with increasing frequency, the
leftists in the media are drawing comparisons to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. It's wrong. It's beyond the pale. It's as if the Democrats
have learned nothing from their electoral losses over the last 9 years and are continuing to place all of their bets on race and hate.

President Trump has not broken any law. He is following the law. In the most recent situation, where he had the border agents separate
children from people claiming to be parents or relatives, but could not prove it, the President was protecting children from human traffickers,
which had been a problem under Obama.

It is understandable why many Americans dislike President Trump. There is much not to like about him on a personal level. But we are not
supposed to select or support our leaders on their personalities alone. That leads to a cult of personality where the importance of policy is
diminished and the force of personal charisma is magnified. We need to support leaders with the policies we favor and the ability to get those
policies instituted. Judge politicians on their results, not their intentions or their likability.

President Trump has kept faith with his promises, delivered on them where possible and the country is doing better because of it.

Is he squeaky clean? No.
Does he exaggerate, embellish, say untrue things? Yes.
Does he exaggerate, embellish, or say untrue things about topics that actually affect people's lives? No.
Usually, when he does these things, it's a face saving mechanism.

But can any of us say that President Trump has been treated fairly by many of his critics?

Can anyone say honestly that President Trump hasn't been made the object of the most hate filled and vile comments ever made against a
President? Ladies and gentlement, respectfully, I don't believe there is any doubt about that.

Can you think of any Presidential Administration who had Cabinet level officials harassed in public places and even in their own homes?
I can't.

Can you think of any First Family that had to endure threats of physical violence from people in the news media and entertainment industry?
Threats to children as young as 4 years old, as in the case of Don Jr's daughter, Chloe? Again, I cannot.

Democrats will do what they do. They have never known moderation in tone, despite virtue signaling and morally preening whenever it suits
them politically. I address this to rank and file Democrats. Neighbors, friends and family. Americans on the left and the right, who think
it is their moral duty to hate everyting about this President and his family.

I am profoundly saddened and disappointed in you.

Criticize his policies if you disagree with them. Have a field day doing it.
But enough with the personality nonsense. And enough with threats to Cabinet officials and families.

For the Great Vocal Majority, I am Tony Codispoti.

I woke up this morning and came across an article by Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei on
the Axios website called, "The Public Case against Trump." I figured I had better read it because if there is a public case against this President, I'd like to know what it is.

I was immediately disappointed.

The very first sentence in the article makes a false claim. It says, "One thing is true of all major political scandals: What we know in the moment is but a tiny, obscured, partial view of the full story later revealed by investigators." I thought to myself, "is there even one case where that was true?" The authors claim it has been true "of all major political scandals." Yet, when I think back to the mother of all political scandals, Watergate, the American public knew pretty early on that President Nixon was involved. And unlike Watergate, where an office was burglarized and people were arrested, the investigators of Trump and Russia aren't even investigating a crime. They are investigating hoping to find one. There is nothing to compare that to in previous political scandals. So, right from the jump, Allen and Vandehei want their readers to think all political scandals end in a crescendo of unanticipated revelations. To me, it sounds like the boys have watched way too many movies. But I digress. I soldiered on to the meat and potatoes of their "case".

Allen and Vandehei go through a list of "knowns" they believe should have already ended the Trump Presidency. It's worth addressing each one, because it reveals something really disturbing: Allen and Vandehei are desperately attempting to keep the Russian collusion fantasy alive when they know there's nothing there. The only other alternative is even more disturbing: that both men believe this set of "knowns" are sufficient grounds upon which to end a Presidency and reverse the results of an election.

1ST KNOWN:
"We know Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign chair, has been indicted on 32 counts, including conspiracy and money laundering. We know he made millions off shady Russians and changed the Republican platform to the benefit of Russia."

Allen and Vandehei fail to point out that the charges against Manafort had nothing at all to do with Russian collusion. They are related to bank and tax fraud charges two year before Manafort's involvement with the Trump campaign. Incidentally, Manafort was only involved with the Trump campaign from June to August of 2016 and the NY Times admitted that the charges against Manafort were simply an effort by the Mueller team to pressure him. In fact, the Mueller team has been reprimanded by the trial judge publicly for using strong armed tactics.

2ND KNOWN:
"We know that the U.S. intelligence community concluded, in a report released in January 2017, that Russian President Vladimir Putin “ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election,” to “denigrate” Hillary Clinton and with “a clear preference for ... Trump.”"

Allen and Vandehei fail to point out key facts here, as well. For months, Democrats and their allies in the media like Allen and Vandehei, were declaring "all 17 intel agencies agreed about Russian interference." This was an intentional falsehood designed to give the public the impression that the full weight of the US intelligence establishment agreed, when 13 agencies rendered no opinion and had no interest in weighing in. It was simply a way to make the case sound more overwhelming than it was. Furthermore, while it was true that Putin and Russia worked to denigrate Clinton, it was not necessarily to benefit Trump. That canard was perpetrated by James Comey in Congressional testimony who said he saw no other motivation. But simple logic would tell you that the Russians, like everyone else, expected Clinton to win the election and their only motivation was to de-legitimize her. We have evidence this is true, because immediately after Trump won the election, the Russians organized a protest against his victory in New York City.

So, the preference for Trump by Putin is belied by the fact that his people organized that protest.

3RD KNOWN:
"We know that in May 2016, Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat Russia had political dirt on Hillary. "About three weeks earlier," according to the N.Y. Times, "Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton.""

These were barroom conversations, not evidence of collusion. It would be wise at this point to remember that Hillary Clinton operated a mail server that was so lacking in security, it wasn't even up to date with the regular security patches issued by Microsoft. And while official Washington has denied there being any evidence her email server was hacked by a foreign power, a number of former government officials have come forward, on the record to state that it is virtually impossible to think Clinton's server wasn't hacked because foreign intel agencies continuously attempt to hack the communications of our top officials. Having an unsecured server isn't even a challenge for government grade hackers. In other words, whatever was said betwee Papadopoulos and a Russian professor in London, is really almost meaningless because anyone who wanted Clinton's emails, had them.

4TH & 5TH KNOWN:
"We know that in June 2016, Trump’s closest aides and family members met at Trump Tower with a shady group of Russians who claimed to have dirt on Hillary. The meeting was billed as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.""

"We know the Russian lawyer who helped set it up concealed her close ties to Putin government."

This meeting was a big nothing. Rather than being evidence of collusion, it's actually evidence that there was no collusion. Because if there was collusion, the meeting would not have been abruptly ended. The Russian attorney with ties to Putin would have come with information on Clinton pointing to collusion. Yet, she didn't. Some will say that Trump's son and son in law attended hoping to get information on Clinton, but even if that is true, nobody at the time knew whether she was tied to Putin.

6TH KNOWN:
"We know that in July 2016, Trump said: "“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 [Hillary] emails that are missing,” and urged their publication."

Of all these so called "knowns", I find this one to be an embarassment for Allen and Vandehei. Why? Because if a Presidential candidate is going to collude with a hostile foreign power in order to win an election, it would seem that the best way to do that would probably not include a public campaign speech. Anyone who's seen the video of Trump making this speech knows he was needling the Democrat media as Trump often does to the delight of his supporters.

7TH KNOWN:
"We know that on Air Force One a year later, Trump helped his son, Don Jr., prepare a misleading statement about the meeting. We know top aides freaked out about this."

This is water over the dam, too. Donald Trump and his son are both political novices. Whatever they crafted is of no consequence because Donald Trump Junior's emails leading up to the meeting with the Russian lawyer have been released to the Special Counsel and made public.

8TH KNOWN:
"We know Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting."

Actually, we don't know this for a fact. All we know is that an anonymous source to the NY Times revealed this. Even if it occurred, it is neither illegal or an indicator of collusion. The President has the authority by virtue of his office to declassify anything he wishes. Trump's conversation with Lavrov are not evidence of anything resembling collusion.

9TH KNOWN:
"We know Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and close campaign aide, lied to Vice President Pence and FBI about his Russia-related chats. We know he’s now cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller. We know Trump initially tried to protect Flynn with loyalty and fervency rarely shown by Trump to others."

What the authors are not telling you here is how those "chats" Flynn had were of no consequence because they didn't involve collusion of any kind. Furthermore, people associated with the Flynn case within the FBI have asserted he did not lie to them as Allen and Vandehei suggest here. Only James Comey continues to insist he lied to FBI investigators. Even Andrew McCabe, the disgraced 2nd in command at the FBI has said Flynn did not lie to his investigators. Additionally, Flynn is being prosecuted and having his life and reputation destroyed over lies he never told, while Hillary Clinton and her entire team were exonerated and given immunity from prosecution while actually lying to investigators.

10TH KNOWN:
"We know that during the transition, Jared Kushner spoke with the Russian ambassador "about establishing a secret communications channel between the Trump transition team and Moscow." We know Kushner omitted previous contacts with Russians on his disclosure forms."

The key phrase here is "during the transition." There is nothing extraordinary about a newly elected President having his team of advisers establishing lines of communication with other governments. To cast suspicion on something as routine for an incoming administration as this, is nothing short of staggering.

11TH KNOWN:
We know Trump initially lied about why he fired James Comey, later admitting he was canned because of the “Russia thing.”

Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President broad authority to fire or hire Federal agency officials. In the exercise of those duties under Article 2, the President is not required to justify any firing he makes. He can fire James Comey because he's too tall or has bags under his eyes. He can fire him for ANY REASON or NO REASON. Therefore, it really doesn't matter why Trump fired him or what he ever said about it, one way of the other.

12TH KNOWN:
We know Michael Cohen was a close adviser and lawyer, the fixer and secret-keeper. We know Trump seethed when the FBI raided Cohen's office.

The authors here are being blatantly dishonest by not revealing all the facts. We also know that President Trump was not the only person "seething" from the raid on Cohen's office. The raid was a unnecessarily heavy handed move, rarely used, especially on a cooperating witness as Cohen was, and even more especially on the President's attorney. Former Federal prosecutors and DOJ officials were highly critical of this action. It's hardly used even on organized criminals, much less Presidents of the United States. The question readers of Allen and Vandehei need to ask is, why are these authors not giving the entire story?

13TH KNOWN:
"We know that in January 2016, just before Republicans began voting, Michael Cohen tried to restart a Trump Tower project in Moscow."

This is an incredible overstatement of what actually occurred. Donald Trump had only a non-binding letter of intent that was signed in 2015, regarding real estate development in Russia. Felix Sater, a Russian business associate wrote Michael Cohen about getting the project underway, but there is no evidence Cohen ever responded to those emails. So, how Allen and Vandehei could conclude that Cohen tried to restart the project is simply baffling. In addition to that, there is also no evidence that Sater ever delivered on any of his promises, according to the New York Times. So, what the hell are Allen and Vandehei even talking about?

14TH & 15TH KNOWN:
"We know Mueller questioned a Russian oligarch who made payments to Cohen who used the money to pay off a porn star who allegedly had an affair with Trump."
"We know that oligarch was a bad enough dude that the Trump administration sanctioned him."

This is pure speculation. The Russian oligarch being referred to is, Viktor Vekselberg. He was in attendence at the same dinner in which Michael Flynn and others were seated with Vladimir Putin. Also in attendance at that dinner, was Jill Stein, who remarked that Putin sat down for a photo op and was not even introduced to the people sitting at the table. If Vekselberg is such an ally of Trump, it's difficult to explain why Trump sanctioned him in April of 2018 along with about a dozen other Russian oligarchs.

It should be clear from this incredibly slanted article, that Allen and Vandehei have staked their reputations on the Russian collusion story and are desperately grasping at straws, using selected facts, speculation, mischaracterizations to mislead the public.

This is not to say there was no Russian collusion. Here are a few facts we actually do know.

1. We know that within 24 hours of the election, the Hillary Clinton campaign team talked about floating the idea that Russian interference was responsible for her defeat. This was mentioned in a book memorializing the Clinton Campaign, written by two liberal reporters, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign."

2. We know that the Clinton Campaign shelled out millions of dollars to acquire what has come to be known as the "Russian Dossier", generally regarded as a fraudulent document. It was relied upon to acquire a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump Campaign and transition. The FBI never interviewed the sources of the claims in the dossier, a violation of their standards and practices.

3. We know that Hillary Clinton maintained an email server that was unsecured in direct violation of her duties as Secretary of State and for which she suffered no legal penalty.

4. We know that former Deputy Director of the CIA, Mike Morell, Michael Hayden, former Director of the NSA, and a number of others have said it is virtually impossible to believe Clinton's mail server wasn't breached by a multitude of hostile governments.

5. We know that John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman and his brother in the Podesta Group, lobbied on behalf of Russia.

6. We know that Clinton destroyed numerous electronic devices, which could have been mined for evidence against her.

7. We know that the people leading the FBI investigation of Clinton were anti-Trump, pro-Clinton partisans.

8. We know the FBI investigators broke with their standards and practices by permitting all of Clinton's staff to be represented by a single attorney, which gave them the opportunity to coordinate their testimony. This violates protocol because in an investigation, the FBI looks for inconsistencies in testimony.

9. We know that Russian entities donated in excess of $150 million dollars to the Clinton Family Foundation during the same timeframe that Hillary Clinton's State Department approved the Uranium One deal, which ultimately resulted in Russian control of 20% of American Uranium ore resources.

10. We know that since the Uranium One deal, Russian entities have not given any noteworthy donations to the Clinton Foundation.

11. We know that James Comey wrote the exoneration letter for Clinton, months before she and her team were actually inteviewed.

I could go on, but the point has been more than sufficiently made: Hillary Clinton not only colluded with Russians against Trump, she also was a key player in policy decisions that allowed Russia to have access to strategic nuclear materials and benefited financially, even if only by coincidence, but certainly warranting as deep an investigation as anything Trump is alleged to have done. To make matters even worse, it appears that high ranking officials in the Obama Administration, DOJ and FBI conspired to exonerate Clinton of any wrongdoing, even though it was clear she had broken the law.

People like Allen and Vandehei don't even see this as an issue anymore. But their attitude is prevalent throughout the media and it is precisely why growing numbers of people just don't believe them anymore and have stopped taking them seriously as impartial reporters.

For the Great Vocal Majority, I'm Tony Codispoti. Thanks for listening.

SOURCES

THE UK DAILY MAIL

Crash that killed lesbian couple and their six adopted children appears INTENTIONAL

CBS NEWS

Youth from famed photo believed among dead as SUV flies off cliff

THE OREGONIAN

Hart children immediately pulled from public schools after mother's abuse conviction

Former Hart family friend: "Current system failed to protect these children from their abusers."

NEWS ONE

Devonte Hart and his siblings removed from public school the day after mother's child abuse conviction

Troubling questions surround the Texas adoption of Devonte Hart and his five siblings

In a NY Times Op-ed, retired Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens reminds us our precious inalienable rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are under attack by the likes of him and those of similar mind.

In 1951, Democrats of conscience mistakenly defended a Soviet spy, Alger Hiss. In 2018, Democrats with a history of lying and without a conscience are attacking the President for colluding with Russia without any evidence.

Despite the lack of evidence and an investigation that has lasted over a year, leftists continue to believe Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia to win the election.

While there is little doubt that the Russians stepped up their interference to unprecedented levels of intensity, certain members of the media as well as government officials hostile to President Trump, have treated Russian Election interference and the alleged collusion by the Trump campaign interchangeably.  This is terribly misleading to the average American.  The former is a fact supported with evidence, but the latter is little more than suspicion based on mistrust born out of Trump’s shocking upset of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential race.

The Democrat Party rank and file are being misled here.  But their disappointment and dislike of Trump has fueled belief in conspiracies.  It’s a self-destructive trap not unlike lemmings running off a cliff.